Monday, January 27, 2014

I heard a pastor on the radio this morning say “if you don’t feel remorse the instant you commit a sin, then I have to wonder if you are truly a child of God.” This is false teaching.

It is an obvious and irrefutable fact that everyone is different in some, perhaps many, respects. Not everyone will feel remorse for sin immediately. Sometimes, remorse comes later. It may come in an hour or a few hours. It may come the next day. It is patently false to assert that every believer will feel remorse for sin immediately. There is no Biblical basis for such an assertion. It is false teaching.

When a pastor says “if you don’t do X, then you are not truly saved”, his listeners may naturally begin to think “since I want to be truly saved, then I must do X”. Now the pastor has added something to the gospel. X might actually be a good thing to do, but doing it does not contribute to the completion of our salvation and doing it does not cleanse us of the sin we just committed. There is nothing we can do that has any ability to cleanse us of our sins. What can wash away my sin? NOTHING!

…but the blood of Jesus.

Doing X cannot undo or cleanse us of our most recent sin. It cannot make us right in God’s eyes again. There is no such thing as being made right in God’s eyes again. The one and only thing that ever made us right in God’s eyes in the first place has made us right in God’s eyes forever. Our salvation can never be lost. Therefore, it can never be restored.

We are finished being saved. There is nothing else we must do to be saved. We already have victory in Jesus. We can do ourselves a tremendous disservice if we neglect to further explore, comprehend, and embrace the extent and magnitude of the victory that Jesus has won for us. But, it is already complete. Not only is there nothing that we can do, but also there is nothing left to do. Our salvation is complete. We are finished being saved.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Parents of children attending a Red Hook, New York, middle school are outraged after a recent anti-bullying presentation at Linden Avenue Middle School.

The workshop for 13 and 14-year-old girls focused on homosexuality and gender identity. They were also taught words such as "pansexual" and "genderqueer."

Parents say their daughters were told to ask one another for a kiss and they say two girls were told to stand in front of the class and pretend they were lesbians on a date.

"She told me, 'Mom we all get teased and picked on enough. Now I'm going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her,'" parent, Mandy Coon, told reporters.

Coon says parents were given no warning about the presentation and there was no opportunity to opt-out. Both the school principal and the district superintendent are defending the workshops and advising they will schedule more.

"The school is overstepping its bounds in not notifying parents first and giving us the choice," another parent said. "I thought it was very inappropriate. That kind of instruction is best left up to the parents."

"I was absolutely furious -- really furious," a parent who asked to remain anonymous told reporter Todd Starnes, "These are just kids. I'm dumbfounded that they found this class was appropriate."

"We may require more notification to parents in the future," Finch said.

He claimed the sessions are required under the state Dignity for All Students Act, which prohibits harassment and bullying in the classroom.

Principal Katie Zahedi and guidance counselors at the middle school worked with Bard students to organize the workshops.

Most so-called 'homosexuals' have self-identified as such as a result of some sexual trauma(s), which most shrinks refuse (or are not allowed) to acknowledge as trauma and California has made illegal to treat.

The physical reality of their heterosexual biology makes sexual reproduction impossible. They have only recruitment as a means of propagation. Since they were recruited through sexual abuse, it follows that their recruitment would resort to precisely the same method.

Instead of admitting their fear, grief, shame, even horror at what has been done to them, they pridefully insist that their delusion is reality and even go so far as to demand other innocents suffer the same way they do. All in order to justify their denial.

This case overflows with self-righteous hypocrisy. Homosexuals bully children into homosexual acts in order to ostensibly train them not to be bullies. It is irrefutably clear that indoctrination is the goal. Institutionalized sexual abuse, like in the case described in this article, constitutes an atrocity and arises from hatred, which so-called 'homosexuals' feel for the other 97% of us who are not afflicted with their particular type of sexual confusion.

Monday, February 18, 2013

February 12, 2009 marked the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln.
Our national icons are often held in such esteem as to eclipse the
fact they were fallible -- as all men are. For this reason, it is
important that we occasion to look with a critical eye upon these
larger-than-life figures. Cultural myth, after all, can obscure
historical truth.
For context on the Second American Revolution, the War Between the States, consider three quotes on the subject of revolution.

In retrospect on the American Revolution, John Quincy Adams
wrote, "But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the
several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the
RIGHT, but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert
it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be
alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to
cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred,
the bonds of political association -- will not long hold together
parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests
and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the
disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held
together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the
precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the
Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that
which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be
reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center." --John
Quincy Adams (40th anniversary of the ratification of our Constitution,
New York Historical Society, 1839, just two decades before the
commencement of hostilities between the states.)

Looking forward, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "If there be any among
us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican
form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which
error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat
it." (First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801)

Abraham Lincoln agreed: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and
having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing
government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most
valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to
liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the
whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any
portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own,
of so many of the territory as they inhabit." (January 12, 1848, in a
speech criticizing Polk's handling of the Mexican War)

During his inauguration, Barack Hussein Obama insisted on using
Lincoln's Bible as he took his oath of office. Those who know their
history might understand why Obama then proceeded to choke on that oath1.

Obama, the nation's first president whose heritage is half-African
American, was doing a constituent play on Lincoln's status as "The Great
Emancipator," though Obama himself is certainly not the descendant of
slaves. His father was, in fact, an African national, which is why, in
this case, the hyphenated "African-American" is appropriate. His
ancestors may well have been slaveholders, though -- and I am not only
talking about his maternal line.

Tens of millions of Africans have been enslaved by other Africans in
centuries past. And, even though Chattel (house and field) and Pawnship
(debt and ransom) slavery was legally abolished in most African nations
by the 1930s, countless African men, women and children remain enslaved
today, at least those who escape the slaughter of tribal genocide.

Not to be outdone by the Obama inaugural, Republican organizations
are issuing accolades in honor of their party's patriarch, on this
template: "The (name of state) Republican Party salutes and honors
Abraham Lincoln on the celebration of his 200th birthday. An
extraordinary leader in extraordinary times, Abraham Lincoln's greatness
was rooted in his principled leadership and defense of the
Constitution."

Really?

If the Republican Party would spend more energy linking its
birthright to our Constitution rather than Lincoln, it might again
attain the overwhelming support it enjoyed under Ronald Reagan2.

Though Lincoln has already been canonized by those who settle for
partial histories, in the words of John Adams, "Facts are stubborn
things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates
of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

In our steadfast adherence to The Patriot Post's3 motto, Veritas Vos Liberabit ("the truth shall set you free"), and our mission to advocate for the restoration of constitutional limits4 on government, I am compelled to challenge our 16th president's iconic standing.

Lincoln is credited with being the greatest constitutional leader in
history, having "preserved the Union," but his popular persona does not
reconcile with the historical record. The constitutional federalism
envisioned by our Founders and outlined by our Constitution's Bill of Rights5
was grossly violated by Abraham Lincoln. Arguably, he is responsible
for the most grievous constitutional contravention in American history.

Needless to say, when one dares tread upon the record of such a
divine figure as Lincoln, one risks all manner of ridicule, even
hostility. That notwithstanding, we as Patriots should be willing to
look at Lincoln's whole record, even though it may not please our
sentiments or comport with the common folklore of most history books. Of
course, challenging Lincoln's record is NOT tantamount to suggesting
that he believed slavery was anything but an evil, abominable practice.
Nor does this challenge suggest that Lincoln himself was not in
possession of admirable qualities. It merely suggests, contrary to the
popular record, that Lincoln was far from perfect.

It is fitting, then, in this week when the nation recognizes the
anniversary of his birth, that we consider the real Lincoln -- albeit at
great peril to the sensibilities of some of our friends and colleagues.

Liberator of the oppressed...

The first of Lincoln's two most oft-noted achievements was ending the
abomination of slavery. There is little doubt that Lincoln abhorred
slavery, but likewise little doubt that he held racist views toward
blacks. His own words undermine his hallowed status as the Great
Emancipator.

For example, in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln
argued: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of
bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white
and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making
voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor
to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I
believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of
social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live,
while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and
inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race."

Lincoln declared, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races..."

In 1860, Lincoln's racial views were explicit in these words: "I
think I would go for enslaving the black man, in preference to being
enslaved myself. ... They say that between the nigger and the crocodile
they go for the nigger. The proportion, therefore, is, that as the
crocodile to the nigger so is the nigger to the white man."

As for delivering slaves from bondage, it was two years after the
commencement of hostilities that Lincoln signed the Emancipation
Proclamation -- to protests from free white laborers in the North, who
didn't want emancipated slaves migrating north and competing for their
jobs. He did so only as a means to an end, victory in the bloody War
Between the States -- "to do more to help the cause."

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is
not either to save or to destroy slavery," said Lincoln in regard to the
Proclamation. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I
would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do
it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I
would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do
because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I
forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

In truth, not a single slave was emancipated by the stroke of
Lincoln's pen. The Proclamation freed only "slaves within any State ...
the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United
States." In other words, Lincoln declared slaves were "free" in
Confederate states, where his proclamation had no power, but excluded
slaves in states that were not in rebellion, or areas controlled by the
Union army. Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware and Maryland were
left in bondage.

His own secretary of state, William Seward, lamented, "We show our
sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them
and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass was so angry with Lincoln
for delaying the liberation of some slaves that he scarcely contacted
him before 1863, noting that Lincoln was loyal only "to the welfare of
the white race..." Ten years after Lincoln's death, Douglass wrote that
Lincoln was "preeminently the white man's President" and American blacks
were "at best only his step-children."

With his Proclamation, Lincoln succeeded in politicizing the issue
and short-circuiting the moral solution to slavery, thus leaving the
scourge of racial inequality to fester to this day -- in every state of
the Union.

Many historians argue that Southern states would likely have reunited
with Northern states before the end of the 19th century had Lincoln
allowed for a peaceful and constitutionally accorded secession. Slavery
would have been supplanted by moral imperative and technological
advances in cotton production. Furthermore, under this reunification
model, the constitutional order of the republic would have remained
largely intact.

In fact, while the so-called "Civil War" (which by definition, the
Union attack on the South was not) eradicated slavery, it also
short-circuited the moral imperative regarding racism, leaving the
nation with racial tensions that persist today. Ironically, there is now
more evidence of ethnic tension in Boston than in Birmingham, in Los
Angeles than in Atlanta, and in Chicago than in Charleston.

Preserve the Union...

Of course, the second of Lincoln's most famous achievements was the preservation of the Union.

Despite common folklore, northern aggression was not predicated upon
freeing slaves, but, according to Lincoln, "preserving the Union." In
his First Inaugural Address Lincoln declared, "I hold that in
contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of
these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in
the fundamental law of all national governments."

"Implied, if not expressed"?

This is the first colossal example of errant constitutional interpretation, the advent of the so-called "Living Constitution6."

Lincoln also threatened the use of force to maintain the Union when
he said, "In [preserving the Union] there needs to be no bloodshed or
violence ... unless it be forced upon the national authority."

On the other hand, according to the Confederacy, the War Between the
States had as its sole objective the preservation of the constitutional
sovereignty of the several states.

Our Founding Fathers established the constitutional Union as a
voluntary agreement among the several states, subordinate to the
Declaration of Independence, which never mentions the nation as a
singular entity, but instead repeatedly references the states as
sovereign bodies, unanimously asserting their independence. To that end,
our Constitution's author, James Madison, in an 1825 letter to our
Declaration of Independence's author, Thomas Jefferson, asserted, "On
the distinctive principles of the Government ... of the U. States, the
best guides are to be found in ... The Declaration of Independence, as
the fundamental Act of Union of these States."

The states, in ratifying the Constitution, established the federal
government as their agent -- not the other way around. At Virginia's
ratification convention, for example, the delegates affirmed "that the
powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of
the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be
perverted to injury or oppression." Were this not true, the federal
government would not have been established as federal, but instead a
national, unitary and unlimited authority. In large measure as a
consequence of the War Between the States, the "federal" government has
grown to become an all-but unitary and unlimited authority.

Our Founders upheld the individual sovereignty of the states, even
though the wisdom of secessionist movements was a source of debate from
the day the Constitution was ratified. Tellingly, Alexander Hamilton,
the utmost proponent of centralization among the Founders, noted in
Federalist No. 81 that waging war against the states "would be
altogether forced and unwarrantable." At the Constitutional Convention,
Hamilton argued, "Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a
government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting
itself?"

Indeed, The Declaration states, "That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." To that end,
during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected
language that would permit the federal government to suppress secession
and observed rightly: "A Union of the States containing such an
ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force
against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an
infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party
attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be
bound."

To provide some context, three decades before the occupation of Fort
Sumter, former secretary of war and then South Carolina Senator John C.
Calhoun argued, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is,
whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional
or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the
sovereignty of the states, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a
form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice,
violence, and force must ultimately prevail."

Two decades before the commencement of hostilities between the
states, John Quincy Adams wrote, "If the day should ever come (may
Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States
shall be alienated from each other ... far better will it be for the
people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other
than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for
reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption
of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union. ... I hold
that it is no perjury, that it is no high-treason, but the exercise of a
sacred right to offer such a petition."

But the causal case for states' rights is most aptly demonstrated by
the words and actions of Gen. Robert E. Lee, who detested slavery and
opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined Lincoln's request
that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first
allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: "I have, therefore,
resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native
state ... I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword." He would,
soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying
his officers with these words: "Let each man resolve to be victorious,
and that the right of self-government, liberty and peace shall find him a
defender."

Often lost in the populist assertion that slavery was the catalyst
for the War Between the States (or the Second War for Independence as it
was commonly called in the South), is the great burden oppressive
tariffs on imports to protect northern industry, placed upon southern
agrarian states.

In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln employed lofty rhetoric to conceal
the truth of our nation's most costly war -- a war that resulted in the
deaths of some 600,000 Americans and the severe disabling of more than
400,000 others. He claimed to be fighting so that "this nation under God
shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people,
by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." In fact,
Lincoln was ensuring just the opposite by waging an appallingly bloody
war while ignoring calls for negotiated peace. It was the "rebels" who
were intent on self-government, and it was Lincoln who rejected their
right to that end, despite our Founders' clear admonition to the
contrary in the Declaration.

Moreover, had Lincoln's actions been subjected to the terms of the
Fourth Geneva Convention (the first being codified in 1864), he and his
principal military commanders, with Gen. William T. Sherman heading the
list, would have been tried for war crimes. This included waging "total
war" against not just combatants, but the entire civilian population. It
is estimated that Sherman's march to the sea was responsible for the
rape and murder of tens of thousands of civilians.

Further solidifying their wartime legacy, Sherman, Gen. Philip
Sheridan, and young Brigadier General George Armstrong Custer (whose
division blocked Gen. Lee's retreat from Appomattox), spent the next ten
years waging unprecedented racial genocide against the Plains Indians.

Lincoln's war may have preserved the Union geographically (at great
cost to the Constitution), but politically and philosophically, the
constitutional foundation for a voluntary union was shredded by sword,
rifle and cannon.

"Reconstruction" followed the war, and with it an additional period
of Southern probation, plunder and misery, leading Robert E. Lee to
conclude, "If I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of
their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox
Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of
subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave
men, my sword in my right hand."

Little reported and lightly regarded in our history books is the way
Lincoln abused and discarded the individual rights of Northern citizens.
Tens of thousands of citizens were imprisoned (most without trial) for
political opposition, or "treason," and their property confiscated.
Habeas corpus and, in effect, the entire Bill of Rights was suspended.
Newspapers were shut down and legislators detained so they could not
offer any vote unfavorable to Lincoln's conquest.

In fact, the Declaration of Independence details remarkably similar
abuses by King George to those committed by Lincoln: the "Military
[became] independent of and superior to the Civil power"; he imposed
taxes without consent; citizens were deprived "in many cases, of the
benefits of Trial by Jury"; state legislatures were suspended in order
to prevent more secessions; he "plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts,
burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people ... scarcely
paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a
civilized nation."

The final analysis...

Chief among the spoils of victory is the privilege of writing the history.

Lincoln said, "Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow.
The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."

Lincoln's enduring reputation is the result of his martyrdom. He was
murdered on Good Friday and the metaphorical comparisons between Lincoln
and Jesus were numerous.

Typical is this observation three days after his death by Parke
Godwin, editor of the New York Evening Post: "No loss has been
comparable to his. Never in human history has there been so universal,
so spontaneous, so profound an expression of a nation's bereavement. [He
was] our supremest leader -- our safest counselor -- our wisest friend
-- our dear father."

A more thorough and dispassionate reading of history, however,
reveals a substantial expanse between his reputation and the reality of
his actions. Even the most devoted Lincolnphile must objectively admit
that Lincoln himself dealt the greatest injury and insult to our
Constitution.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside," Lincoln declared.
"If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed
ourselves." Never were truer words spoken.

While the War Between the States concluded in 1865, the battle for
states' rights -- the struggle to restore constitutional federalism --
remains spirited, as indeed it should. It is a major front in the
continuing battle to reestablish Rule of Law for our nation.
In his inaugural speech, Barack Obama quoted Lincoln: "We are not
enemies, but friends.... Though passion may have strained, it must not
break our bonds of affection."

“Be” messages full only of moral instruction imply that we are able to change our fallen condition in our own strength. Such sermons communicate (although usually unintentionally) that we clear the path to grace and that our works earn and/or secure our acceptance with God. However well intended, these sermons present a faith indistinguishable from that of morally conscientious Unitarians, Buddhists, or Hindus. . . .

The fundamental biblical truth that differentiates the gospel from a morality lesson is the assertion that our works always remain tainted by our humanity. Of themselves our actions can never earn God’s blessing or secure his favor (Isa. 64:6; Luke 17:10). Although there are blessed consequences to heeding divine commands designed for our good, mere conformity to biblical commands offers no heavenly merit. If we had to earn grace prior to, or after, our salvation it would not be grace that we gained.

There are many “be” messages in Scripture, but they always reside in a redemptive context. Since we cannot be anything that God would approve apart from his sanctifying power, the source of that grace must permeate any exhortation for biblical behavior. “Be” messages are not wrong in themselves; they are wrong messages by themselves. People cannot do or be what God requires without the work of Christ in, for, and through them. Simply railing at error and hammering at piety may convince others of their inadequacy or callous them into self-sufficiency, but these messages also keep true godliness remote. Thus, instruction in biblical behavior barren of redemptive truth only wounds, and though it is offered as an antidote to sin such preaching either promotes pharisaism or prompts despair. Christ-centered preachers accept neither alternative. . . . The holy standards that pierce the heart whenever people recognize the depth of their divine obligations become salve to their souls when we preach their fulfillment in Christ and their enablement by His Spirit. . . .

When we exhort congregations to stand for God against the assaults of Satan we must never forget the balance of the Pauline imperative: “Finally, brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might” (Eph 6:10, KJV). Amidst his most strident “be” message, the apostle remained Christ-focused. Today’s preacher has no lesser task.

Faithful expository preaching unfolds every text in the context of its redemptive import. The success of this endeavor can be assessed by a bottom-line question every preacher should ask at the end of each sermon: When my listeners walk out the doors of this sanctuary to perform God’s will, with whom do they walk? If they march to battle the world, the flesh, and the devil with only me, myself, and I, then each parades to despair. However, if the sermon has led all persons within sight of the Savior and they now walk into their world with his aid firmly in their grasp, then hope and victory brighten the horizon. Whether people depart alone or in the Savior’s hand will mark the difference between futility and faith, legalism and true obedience, do-goodism and real godliness.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

This video is a devastating critique of Obama's foreign policy. It refutes the isolationism of Ron Paul. It also rightly challenges George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as well.

"Your deadliest enemies on the Afghan battlefield have completely freedom of movement inside Pakistan with the blessing of the Pakistanis. And every commander that's sat in your shoes has had to try and build a relationship and go through the same motions time and time again. And the effect on the battlefield remains exactly the same: American soldiers continue to die because of the support Pakistan gives to America's enemies.

[General Allen:]You just stated the truth.
[...]
To think there is any similarity between this and Viet Nam is ridiculous. The Viet Cong didn't care what you did when you went back to America. The Viet Cong weren't fighting for an Islamic caliphate. The Viet Cong didn't have a global struggle. And it's amazing to me that we constantly ignore what Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and [...] all these groups tell us every day in their own newspapers, in their own statements.
[...]
Our way of life is under attack, and if you think that's government propaganda, if you think that's nonsense, if you think that's warmongering, [then] you're not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.
[...]
If you fail to identify the ideological component to this fight, if you fail to identify what your enemy is really fighting for, if you lie about who they really are, I don't see how you could possible have the right strategy.
[...]
When I look at what's happening in Libya, there's a big song and dance about whether this was a terrorist attack or a protest. And you just want to scream, "For God's sake! Are you kidding me?" The last time we were attacked like this was the USS Cole, which was a prelude to the 1998 embassy bombings, which was a prelude to 9/11. And you're sending in FBI to investigate. I hope to God that you're sending in your best clandestine warriors who are going to exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil, that its ambassadors will not be murdered, and the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it."

We hold in high esteem many preachers and authors who are well known, but the nameless saint in a secret place where the daily burdens of sweat and sorrow are his only reward is the far better role model.

As a rainbow appears after a storm when there may well be more rain to come, other signs of God's sovereignty appear amidst the terrible troubles of our lives to remind us that He has promised no matter how fierce the storm or how overwhelming the challenge, it will not end in our destruction.